SLPR, L.L.C. v. San Diego Unified Port District (2020) · DecisionDepot
SLPR, L.L.C. v. San Diego Unified Port District
California Court of Appeal May 22, 2020 No. D074958Published
Filed 5/22/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SLPR, L.L.C., et al., D074958
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. GIC860766-1, consolidated with Nos. 37-2008- SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT 00079175-CU-OR-CTL and 37- et al, 2016-00025353-CU-EI-CTL)
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Judith F.
Hayes, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Thornes Bartolotta McGuirre; Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr. and Karen R. Frostrom;
Beus Gilbert; Thomas A. Gilson and Megan Beus, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Thomas A. Russell, General Counsel, Ellen F. Gross, Assistant General Counsel,
John Carter, Deputy General Counsel; and Scott Noya for Defendant and Respondent San
Diego Unified Port District.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Daniel A. Olivas, Assistant Attorney General,
Jamee Jordan Patterson and Hayley Peterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant
and Respondent State of California.
Plaintiffs SLPR, L.L.C. (SLPR), Ann Goodfellow, trustee of the survivor's trust of
the Goodfellow Family Trust (Goodfellow), and Jerry M. Cannon and Michael S. Morris,
trustees of the Sewall Family Trust (Sewall) (together Plaintiffs) appeal a judgment
entered in favor of defendant State of California (State) in their action against State and
the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) (together Defendants) arising out of damage to
their bayside properties in the City of Coronado (City) allegedly caused by dredging of
the San Diego Bay (Bay). As discussed in our initial opinion in this case, SLPR, LLC
et al. v. State Lands Com. et al. (Nov. 29, 2012, D059913) [nonpub. opn.] (SLPR I), the
United States Navy (Navy) dredged an area of the Bay within the Naval Air Station
North Island Turning Basin (Turning Basin) in 1998 and 2002 and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (Army) dredged the central navigation channel (Channel) of
the Bay from 2004 to 2005. (SLPR I, at pp. 3-5.) In SLPR I, we concluded, inter alia,
that the trial court erred by granting summary adjudication on Plaintiffs' cause of action
for quiet title because there were triable issues of material fact on the meaning of a
facially ambiguous 1931 judgment (Spreckels judgment) in favor of City and against J.D.
and A.B. Spreckels Investment Company (Spreckels), owner of real property along the
Bay's shoreline and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, and other defendants regarding
whether that judgment fixed the bayside boundaries of Plaintiffs' properties or whether it
located only the current position of the mean high tide line (MHTL) at that time and
2
retained the ambulatory MHTL as the legal boundaries of their properties. (SLPR I, at
pp. 11, 22-23, 30-31.)
On remand after SLPR I, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (TAC),
alleging causes of action for quiet title, inverse condemnation related to the quiet title
cause of action (by SLPR and Arendsee), inverse condemnation (by Plaintiffs), nuisance,
and removal of lateral support. The trial court sustained State's demurrer to the third,
fourth, and fifth causes of action. The court subsequently conducted a bench trial on the
first and second causes of action and, after admitting and considering extrinsic evidence
regarding the meaning of the Spreckels judgment, found that the judgment had fixed the
boundaries between Plaintiffs' properties and the public tidelands. The court then entered
judgment in favor of State and against Plaintiffs.
On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by: (1) concluding State's
affirmative defense of res judicata based on the Spreckels judgment applied to bar the
first and second causes of action; and (2) sustaining State's demurrer to the third, fourth,
and fifth causes of action. Based on our reasoning post, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
In 1923, the Legislature granted to City, in public trust, the tidelands and
submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, between the MHTL and pierhead line from
Glorietta Bay to the Spanish Bight, which includes the area adjacent to Plaintiffs'
properties. In 1930, City filed an action to quiet title against Spreckels and other
1 For additional factual and procedural background, refer to our opinion in SLPR I.
3
defendants to determine the location of the MHTL boundary between private uplands and
City's public tidelands. (SLPR I, supra, at p. 2.) In 1931, as discussed post, City and
Spreckels approved a settlement agreement and changed their pleadings to reflect their
stipulated courses and distances boundary description. The following day, the trial court
entered the Spreckels judgment, ostensibly determining the location of that boundary.
The Spreckels judgment, titled "JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE," states in pertinent
part:
"The above entitled cause came on regularly for trial . . . upon the amended complaint of [City] and the respective answers thereto of the defendants [Spreckels and other named defendants]. . . . And the Court having heard the testimony and the statements of counsel for the parties and being of opinion and finding that at all times prior to the date of this judgment the location of the [MHTL] of [Bay] on the [City] side of [Bay], was uncertain and unknown to the parties to this action, and being now sufficiently advised and informed in the premises for the purposes hereof, it is now hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED by the Court as follows:
"First: At the time of the commencement of the above entitled action the [City] was, it ever since has been, and it now is the owner, as Trustee for and on behalf of [City] and the inhabitants thereof, of the following described property situated in [Bay], which is more particularly described as follows: All the tidelands and submerged lands, whether filled or unfilled, within the boundaries of [City] as the said boundaries exist at the date of this judgment, and situated upon the [City] side of [Bay], and lying between the line of mean high tide and the pierhead line in [Bay], as the said pierhead line has been or may hereafter be established by the Federal Government, and between the prolongation of the easterly boundary of [City] into Glorietta Bay (a portion of [Bay]) and the prolongation of the westerly boundary line of [City] into Spanish Bight (a portion of [Bay]).
"Second: The said [MHTL] above mentioned, and which constitutes the boundary line between the upland and the aforesaid tidelands and submerged lands constituting a part of [Bay] adjoining and bordering
4
upon the said uplands, is located and situated at, along and upon a line described as follows, to-wit:
"Beginning at Station 0, said Station being a point on the [MHTL] of [Bay] at its intersection with the Easterly city limits line of [City], said point being marked by an 8" x 8" concrete monument marked CCXII [and then setting forth a lengthy surveyor's description of angles and distances representing about 110 lines that run from numbered "station" to numbered "station" beginning with "Station 0" and terminating at "Station 110"], . . . [¶] . . . Station No. 110 being a point on the [MHTL] of Spanish Bight a portion of [Bay], at the intersection of said [MHTL] with the Westerly Boundary of [City].
"Third: At the time of the commencement of the above entitled action [Spreckels] was, continuously since February 5, 1921, had been, and it now is the owner of and in the possession and enjoyment of an estate and interest in real property, to-wit: an estate for years in and to all and singular the lands and premises, whether tidelands or submerged lands and whether filled or unfilled, situate in Glorietta Bay in [Bay] and lying below the [MHTL] of [Bay] in the said Glorietta Bay and between [two points identified by marked concrete monuments] and containing not more than forty (40) acres of the said tidelands and/or submerged lands; that the aforesaid estate of [Spreckels] in and to the lands and premises aforesaid is based upon and exists by virtue of and is for the term and terms, period and periods, and pursuant to the covenants, conditions, and agreement of lease thereof, from the Board of Harbor Commissioners for [Bay] to [Spreckels], dated February 5, 1921; that the said lease is in words and figures as follows, to-wit: [¶] [quoting the 1921 lease between Spreckels and the Board of State Harbor Commissioners for Bay]. . . ."
City subsequently recorded a Miscellaneous Map No. 121 (Map 121), depicting the
boundary location determined by the Spreckels judgment.
In 1995, Navy submitted a consistency determination to the California Coastal
Commission (CCC) regarding its plan to dredge the Turning Basin to allow additional
aircraft carriers to be homeported at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI). CCC
concurred with Navy's determination that the proposed dredging project was consistent
5
with the California Coastal Management Program. (California Coastal Com. v. U. S.
(S.D. Cal. 1998) 5 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1108 (California Coastal Com.).) In 1997, Navy
began dredging the Turning Basin, but then discovered live ordnance and submitted a
new consistency determination that would allow it to dispose of dredged material
offshore instead of on public beaches for sand replenishment as originally proposed.
(Ibid.) CCC objected to the new consistency determination, arguing that the modified
dredging project did not conform to the California Coastal Management Program to the
maximum extent possible and that alternatives were available which would allow Navy to
complete the project as originally proposed. (Id. at p. 1109.) After Navy informed CCC
that it intended to proceed without CCC's concurrence with the new consistency
determination, CCC filed a federal district court action seeking a preliminary injunction
enjoining Navy from proceeding with its modified dredging plan. (Id. at pp. 1107, 1109.)
The district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Navy from disposing all
dredged material offshore. (Id. at p. 1110.) Navy ultimately completed its dredging
project in 1998. In 2002, Navy completed additional dredging of the Turning Basin,
presumably after issuing a consistency determination with which CCC concurred.
In 2005, Army completed its dredging of the Channel, presumably after CCC
concurred with, or did not object to, Army's consistency determination in which it agreed
to dispose of dredged materials off the shore of Imperial Beach.
In 2006, SLPR filed a complaint against Port in the San Diego County Superior
Court (case No. GIC860766-1), alleging causes of action for inverse condemnation and
removal of lateral support. (SLPR I, supra, at p. 5.) After SLPR filed a first amended
6
complaint adding Army as a defendant, Army removed the action to federal court. (Ibid.)
In federal court, a second amended complaint was filed, adding Sewall, Goodfellow, and
others as plaintiffs and alleging causes of action for nuisance, inverse condemnation, and
removal of lateral support against only Port and Administrative Procedure Act causes of
action against Army and/or Navy. (Ibid.)
In 2008, Plaintiffs filed a separate complaint in the San Diego County Superior
Court (case No. 37-2008-00079175-CU-OR-CTL), alleging a quiet title cause of action
against Port and State and alleging causes of action against State for nuisance, inverse
condemnation, and removal of lateral support. (SLPR I, supra, at p. 5.) In 2009, the
federal court remanded to the state court Plaintiffs' causes of action against Port. (Ibid.)
Also in 2009, the federal court ordered Army to submit a supplemental consistency
determination to CCC regarding its Channel dredging project. After Army issued a
supplemental consistency determination, Plaintiffs submitted to CCC their objections to
it. CCC concurred with Army's supplemental consistency determination.
In 2010, State and Port filed motions for summary judgment. (SLPR I, supra,
at p. 6.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary adjudication of their causes of action for
quiet title and removal of lateral support. (Ibid.) The trial court granted Defendants'
motions for summary judgment and thereafter entered judgment for Defendants. (Id. at
p. 7.)
On appeal from that judgment, in SLPR I, we reversed the judgment. (SLPR I,
supra, at p. 73.) On Plaintiffs' quiet title cause of action, we concluded that the Spreckels
judgment is not unambiguous on its face and, without resort to extrinsic evidence, is
7
reasonably susceptible to two meanings. (Id. at p. 22.) We stated: "First, the [Spreckels]
judgment could reasonably be construed as fixing the boundary between City's tidelands
and contiguous private lands (owned by Spreckels at that time). Second, in contrast, the
judgment could reasonably be construed as merely locating the position of the current
MHTL at that time while retaining the MHTL as the legal boundary between City's
tidelands and contiguous private lands." (Id. at pp. 22-23.) Therefore, we concluded
there were triable issues of material fact on the quiet title cause of action that precluded
summary judgment. (Id. at pp. 22, 30-31.) We likewise concluded there were triable
issues of material fact on Plaintiffs' causes of action for inverse condemnation, nuisance,
and removal of lateral support. (Id. at pp. 47-48, 54, 65-66.) In particular, on the inverse
condemnation cause of action, we concluded: "[A] reasonable trier of fact could find the
State: (1) actively participated in the projects when it [i.e., CCC] concurred with the
federal government's consistency determinations; (2) actively participated in the projects
when it demanded and obtained changes to the projects (i.e., by requiring the dredged
materials to be deposited along Imperial Beach); and (3) had the power to require
changes to the projects but failed to do so (i.e., failed to require erosion mitigation
measures)." (Id. at pp. 51-52.)
On remand, Plaintiffs filed the operative TAC, alleging causes of action for quiet
title, inverse condemnation related to the quiet title cause of action (by SLPR and
Arendsee), inverse condemnation (by Plaintiffs), nuisance, and removal of lateral
support. In particular, the TAC alleged State substantially participated in all three
8
dredging projects based on CCC's authority to issue or withhold concurrences with the
Navy and Army's consistency determinations for the dredging projects.
State demurred to the TAC. Regarding the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action,
State asserted the affirmative defense that Plaintiffs had failed to timely challenge CCC's
concurrences with the Navy and Army's consistency determinations by filing a petition
for writ of administrative mandate within 60 days after CCC's decisions became final as
required by Public Resources Code section 30801. Finding that the 60-day statute of
limitations barred Plaintiffs' claims against State based on CCC's concurrences or other
decisions regarding the Navy and Army's consistency determinations, the trial court
sustained State's demurrer to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. The court
overruled State's demurrer to the first and second causes of action, finding the TAC stated
sufficient facts to constitute those claims against State. Accordingly, the court dismissed
the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action against State.
The court subsequently conducted a bench trial on the first and second causes of
action and, after admitting and considering extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of
the Spreckels judgment, found that the Spreckels judgment had fixed the boundaries
between Plaintiffs' properties and the public tidelands. Extensively discussing the
extrinsic evidence, the court found that evidence clarified any facial ambiguity in the
Spreckels judgment and showed that the Spreckels judgment fixed the boundary.
Applying res judicata based on the Spreckels judgment, the court concluded that
judgment barred Plaintiffs' first and second causes of action. On July 11, 2018, the court
9
entered judgment in favor of State and against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice
of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Section I
Quiet Title Causes of Action
Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by finding that extrinsic evidence showed
the Spreckels judgment fixed the boundaries of their properties with the Bay tidelands
and therefore the doctrine of res judicata applied based on that judgment to bar their quiet
title causes of action (i.e., first and second causes of action). State disagrees and asserts
the court properly concluded, based on its consideration of the extrinsic evidence, that res
judicata applied to bar Plaintiffs' quiet title causes of action.2
A
Res judicata. " 'Res judicata' describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on
the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of
action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them. . . .
Under the doctrine of res judicata, if a plaintiff prevails in an action, the cause is merged
into the judgment and may not be asserted in a subsequent lawsuit; a judgment for the
defendant serves as a bar to further litigation of the same cause of action." (Mycogen
Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896-897 (Mycogen Corp.).) Under the
2 Port filed a respondent's brief joining in State's argument that res judicata bars Plaintiffs' quiet title causes of action.
10
doctrine of res judicata, "all claims based on the same cause of action must be decided in
a single suit; if not brought initially, they may not be raised at a later date." (Id. at
p. 897.) Res judicata, or claim preclusion, applies when: "(1) the decision in the prior
proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of
action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in
privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding." (Federation of Hillside &
Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202 (Federation of
Hillside & Canyon Assns.).) If those requirements are satisfied, res judicata applies not
only to the issues actually litigated in the prior proceeding, but also to those issues that
could have been litigated in that proceeding. (Ibid.)
Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are in privity with Spreckels or that Port is City's
successor-in-interest regarding the Spreckels judgment. At trial, Plaintiffs stipulated that
they are in privity with Spreckels, which was the prior owner of their properties. In their
opening brief, Plaintiffs concede that Port is the successor-in-interest to City, which was
the plaintiff in the Spreckels action.
Plaintiffs also do not dispute that the Spreckels judgment involved the same cause
of action. At trial, they conceded: "There was an issue [in the Spreckels action] about
the location of the boundary." They further stated: "We don't dispute . . . that there is a
line. . . . There is a line that was agree[d] on. And that's ultimately what the Court
entered its [Spreckels] judgment on."
Accordingly, rather than contesting the trial court's conclusion that the three
elements for application of res judicata were satisfied as to Plaintiffs' first and second
11
causes of action, Plaintiffs challenge the court's interpretation of the Spreckels judgment
based on the extrinsic evidence admitted at trial. In particular, Plaintiffs challenge both
the scope of the evidence admitted in interpreting the facially ambiguous Spreckels
judgment and the court's finding, based on that evidence, that the Spreckels judgment
fixed the boundary between their properties and the Bay tidelands. We address those
issues post.
B
Admissible extrinsic evidence generally. Plaintiffs assert that in deciding the
meaning of the facially ambiguous Spreckels judgment, the court should have admitted
extrinsic evidence that was limited to only "evidence from the four corners of the prior
case itself." They argue the court should not have admitted and considered extrinsic
evidence other than the Spreckels judgment and the record in the Spreckels case,
including the pleadings therein. However, none of the cases cited by Plaintiffs supports
their restrictive view of extrinsic evidence that is admissible to interpret an ambiguous
judgment or other written document.
"If an order [or judgment] is ambiguous, the reviewing court may examine the
record for its scope and effect and may look at the circumstances of its making.
[Citation.] Extrinsic evidence is allowed to determine the parties' intent when a
stipulated order [or judgment] is ambiguous. [Citation.] Unless there are conflicts in the
extrinsic evidence, the interpretation of a stipulated . . . order [or judgment] is reviewed
de novo." (In re Marriage of Samson (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 23, 27.) "It has long been
established that extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove what the parties intended by
12
ambiguous language appearing in a . . . settlement agreement incorporated and merged in
a judgment . . . since '. . . courts do not hesitate to consider all of the admissible extrinsic
evidence correctly to interpret their decrees.' [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Trearse
(1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1189, 1192.) "In California a party is entitled to introduce
extrinsic evidence in support of his interpretation of language in an agreement embodied
in a writing, provided the evidence is offered to support a meaning to which the language
is reasonably susceptible." (Ibid.)
"The test of admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written
instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and unambiguous on its face,
but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of
the instrument is reasonably susceptible." (Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G.W. Thomas
Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33, 37 (Pacific Gas & E. Co.), italics added.) In
interpreting a contract or other written instrument, the goal is to "give effect to the mutual
intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is
ascertainable and lawful." (Civ. Code, § 1636.) The mutual intention of the parties "is
determined by objective manifestations of the parties' intent, including the words used in
the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding
circumstances under which the parties negotiated or entered into the contract; the object,
nature and subject matter of the contract; and the subsequent conduct of the parties."
(Morey v. Vannucci (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 904, 912 (Morey).) For example, "a deed
indefinite in its terms may be made certain by the conduct of the parties acting under it."
extrinsic evidence in addition to the Spreckels judgment and the record in that case is
admissible, such as evidence regarding the surrounding circumstances under which the
parties negotiated or entered into the settlement agreement, the object and nature of the
settlement agreement, and the subsequent conduct of the parties. (Morey, supra, 64
Cal.App.4th at p. 912.) None of the cases cited by Plaintiffs hold that extrinsic evidence
other than the judgment and record in that case is inadmissible. (See, e.g., Rancho
Pauma Mutual Water Co. v. Yuima Municipal Water Dist. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 109,
115 (Rancho Pauma) ["If a judgment is ambiguous, we may examine the entire record to
determine its scope and effect, including the pleadings," italics added]; Goodman v. Dam
(1931) 112 Cal.App. 244, 246 ["The usual and appropriate manner of [proving the res
judicata effect of a judgment] is to offer the judgment roll and other parts of the
record. . . . [The inquiry] extends to the pleadings and other documents prepared and
filed in the case, agreements of counsel on file, stenographic reports or minutes of the
testimony taken, the evidence submitted . . . ."].) The fact that some cases list certain
types of extrinsic evidence that "may" be admitted to prove the meaning of an ambiguous
judgment does not show that other types of extrinsic evidence are inadmissible to prove
the judgment's meaning. We reject Plaintiffs' assertion to the contrary. If certain
extrinsic evidence is relevant to prove the meaning of an ambiguous judgment, that
evidence is admissible whether or not it was part of the record in that case. (Snyder,
at p. 638; Casad, at p. 927; Morey, at p. 912.)
15
C
Artificial accretions rule. Before discussing the extrinsic evidence admitted in this
case, we briefly review California law regarding the determination of the boundary
between tidelands and uplands. In SLPR I, we recognized the general rule " 'that a line
shown on a map which runs along the edge of the ocean [or other body of water] is a
meander line, used to ascertain the quantity of land subject to sale and to show the
sinuosities of the shore, and that the high tide line [or MHTL], not the meander line, is
the true legal boundary.' " (SLPR I, supra, at pp. 19-20, quoting Lechuza Villas West v.
California Coastal Com. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 218, 240, italics added.) However, we
noted "there is an exception to that general rule in cases of artificial accretions resulting
from artificial causes." (SLPR I, at p. 20.) In State of Cal. ex rel. State Lands Com. v.
Superior Court (1995) 11 Cal.4th 50 (State Lands), the California Supreme Court stated:
"As between the state and private upland owners, land along tidelands and navigable rivers that accretes by artificial means, such as local dredging and construction of wing dams and levees, remains in state ownership, and does not go to the upland owner. . . . We . . . should narrowly construe what is artificial under the California rule. Accretion is artificial if directly caused by human activities in the immediate vicinity of the accreted land. But accretion is not artificial merely because human activities far away and, in the case of hydraulic mining, long ago contributed to it." (State Lands, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 56.)
The Supreme Court described the artificial accretions rule, stating: " '[A]ccretions
formed gradually and imperceptibly, but caused entirely by artificial means—that is, by
the works of man, such as wharves, groins, piers, etc., and by the dumping of material
into the ocean—belong to the state, or its grantee, and do not belong to the upland
16
owner.' " (State Lands, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 69-70, quoting Carpenter v. City of Santa
The California Supreme Court reaffirmed California's artificial accretion rule and,
to minimize problems of proof regarding the direct cause of accretion, the court limited
the artificial accretion rule to human activities in the immediate vicinity of the accreted
area, stating:
"We thus hold, consistent with our prior cases, that accretion is artificial if directly caused by human activities, such as the dredging, wing dams or levees cited in this case, that occurred in the immediate vicinity of the accreted land. Accretion is not artificial merely because human activities far away contributed to it. The dividing line between what is and is not in the immediate vicinity will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping in mind that the artificial activity must have been the direct cause of the accretion before it can be deemed artificial. The larger the structure or the scope of human activity such as dredging or dumping, the farther away it can be and still be a direct cause of the accretion, although it must always be in the general location of the accreted property to come within the artificial accretion rule." (State Lands, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 79-80.)
In light of California's artificial accretions rule, we discuss post whether the extrinsic
evidence admitted in this case shows there were artificial improvements in the immediate
vicinity of Plaintiffs' properties prior to the Spreckels judgment and, if so, whether the
parties' mutual intention was for the Spreckels judgment to fix the boundary line between
Spreckels's property and the Bay tidelands at its last natural MHTL line.
D
Extrinsic evidence in this case. At trial, the court admitted extensive extrinsic
evidence that was probative on the issues of whether there were artificial improvements
17
in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiffs' properties prior to the Spreckels judgment and
whether the parties' mutual intention in the Spreckels case was for the Spreckels
judgment to fix the boundary between Spreckels's property and the Bay tidelands or to
simply locate the current ambulatory MHTL at the time of the judgment. At trial, State
presented the expert testimony of Steve Lehman, a California licensed land surveyor,
regarding exhibit 3089, which was a diagram by the State Board of Harbor
Commissioners showing planned development of the Bay as of the late 1800's.
Lehman stated that exhibit 3089 showed planned development of "fairly long wharfs" in
the area along the shoreline of First Street in City and, in particular, in the vicinity of
Plaintiffs' properties.
The court also admitted exhibit 713, consisting of City of Coronado Council (City
Council) minutes dated April 15, 1929, and stating, in part, "Superintendent of Operation
[sic] reported he had investigated the matter of wharves west of the ferry [i.e., in the
vicinity of Plaintiffs' properties]. . . . City Attorney suggested that owners of wharves be
required to take out tideland leases." (Italics added.) Exhibit 713 showed the City
Council passed a resolution that owners of all wharves on City tidelands be instructed to
obtain a permit or lease on the tideland property they are using.
In November 1929, the City Council formed a committee to recommend a civil
engineer, surveyor, and legal counsel "in order that the metes and bounds of [City's]
tidelands be accurately determined and that necessary action be taken for the establishing
of title to such portion of the tidelands, as should be properly vested in [City]." In
February 1930, the City Council authorized the city attorney to commence quiet title
18
proceedings "to fix and determine the tidelands that should be the property of [City], this
question having been at issue for many years and both the Spreckels Interests and
ourselves being uncertain as to the location of the [MHTL] around [City]."
City retained Charles T. Leeds to perform a survey of City's north and west
tidelands boundary. In a March 24, 1930 letter to City's attorney, Leeds stated: "A
considerable additional number of excavations are necessary, however, to definitely fix
the location of the historical and now buried beach line at certain critical locations."
(Italics added.) In a May 3, 1930 letter to City's counsel in preparation for City's quiet
title action, Leeds enclosed blueprints showing "the courses and distances describing the
line of [MHTL] around [City] on the Bay side." Importantly, Leeds stated: "I have been
getting into shape a list of holes which were dug by us, necessary to show where the line
of [MHTL] was before any artificial filling was done, together with complete logs of
each, and a map showing their location." (Italics added.) In a May 16, 1930 letter to the
City Council, Leeds reported that he had completed the field survey of the MHTL along
the Bay. In particular, he stated:
"Where no artificial filling has been done the line was surveyed as it now exists. Where, however, it was apparent that there has been some artificial filling, excavations were made at strategic points, the line of demarkation [sic] between the original and the filled material was observed and recorded, and the line of [MHTL] as it existed prior to the artificial filling was determined. The record of these holes, including surface elevations of original ground and material through which excavation was made, has all been recorded. In certain cases samples of the material has been saved for inspection." (Italics added.)
19
Leeds further stated:
"It is our understanding that this line as now surveyed and described is to be made the basis of negotiations or legal action with a view to its establishment as the official boundary of the tidelands of [City], and that you desire the completion of our contract by marking the line with concrete monuments and furnishing the City with a final map and certified copy of the field notes be deferred until the said line shall have been rendered official either by definite agreement between the City and the various claimants or until a court decree thereon shall have been obtained. [¶] . . .
"As soon as definite and final agreement shall have been reached between the City and the various claimants as to the proper official location of the [MHTL], or immediately upon the rendering of a judicial decision as to the location thereof, we will at once proceed to set concrete monuments replacing the present wood stakes and complete the official map."
Lehman testified that his review of Leeds's survey work showed that Leeds was
locating the historic MHTL prior to artificial fill placed over the MHTL.3 Alternatively
stated, in locations where there was artificial fill placed over the MHTL, the boundary
line that Leeds surveyed was the MHTL prior to the placement of that fill, and in
locations where there was no fill, the boundary line remained the MHTL as it then
existed. Lehman expressed his expert opinion that Leeds's survey of City's tidelands
boundary, with its courses and distances description, was extremely accurate. Lehman
stated that Leeds replaced his temporary wood stake markers with concrete monuments
3 Michael J. Pallamary, Plaintiffs' survey expert, testified that he also believed that Leeds had "drill[ed] holes" to determine where there had been fill or artificial migration.
20
after the Spreckels judgment, reflecting a "permanent fixed line" for City's tidelands
boundary.
In July 1930, City filed its quiet title action against Spreckels and other
defendants. City's complaint asserted City was the owner of property situated in the Bay,
according to a courses and distances description of City's tidelands boundary that
presumably was prepared by Leeds. In September 1930, Spreckels filed its answer,
denying the correctness of City's description of its tidelands boundary. Spreckels
asserted instead that "on July 31, 1930, and at all times prior to that date, the [MHTL] in
the Bay . . . on the [City's] side of the said bay was, and is now, a line described as
follows, to wit: [setting forth a lengthy surveyor's description of angles or courses and
distances representing about 134 lines that run from certain stations, concrete
monuments, points, or stakes to other stations, monuments, points, or stakes]." Spreckels
asserted that it was the owner of all premises lying landward from the courses and
distances boundary line that it described as the MHTL in the Bay.
At an August 17, 1931 City Council meeting, City's mayor reported that Leeds had
been employed by City "to fix and determine" City's tidelands boundary because both
Spreckels and City were uncertain as to its location. The mayor stated that Spreckels's
counsel consulted with City's counsel and proposed a form of agreement describing the
metes and bounds of that boundary, which agreement seemed to be equitable and was
apparently acceptable to Spreckels. The mayor then offered a resolution, titled
"Determining Boundary of Tidelands," which the City Council adopted. City's counsel
described the benefits to City of the proposed settlement agreement, stating: "[I]ts good
21
is inestimable and he could not place the value it will bring the City in the future by
fixing this tide line. It is more than fair to the intentions of this Council, as it will prove
on being fixed." The City attorney concurred, stating that the settlement agreement will
save City considerable litigation expenses and "will finally determine the question as to
the high tide line and as to what the City boundary is and will be."4
Also on August 17, presumably after the City Council meeting that day, City filed
an amended complaint in its quiet title action, alleging its Bay tidelands boundary was as
set forth in a revised courses and distances description, which presumably was the
description set forth in the settlement agreement proposed by Spreckels and accepted by
the City Council.5
On August 18, Spreckels filed an answer to the amended complaint, admitting that
"the line described by [City] in the said paragraph IV [of the amended complaint] as the
[MHTL] in the Bay of the City['s] . . . side of the said bay, is, and on the 21st day of July,
4 An August 17, 1931, newspaper article reported that the City Council's resolution "instructed its legal advisers to consent to a stipulation under which the court shall confirm the agreed boundary of Coronado's tidelands and by court order shall fix the legal boundaries of the [C]ity." The article noted that the tideland settlement agreement was agreed to "by representatives of the [C]ity and attorneys for the San Diego and Arizona railroad, the Spreckels interests and others made defendants in the suit filed by the [C]ity."
5 Also, in a stipulation filed with the court on August 17, 1931, City and The Coronado Water Company, apparently an affiliate of Spreckels and a codefendant in the Spreckels action, agreed that "a Decree may be entered herein fixing and determining the line of ordinary high tide in the Bay of San Diego, on the Coronado side of said Bay as agreed between [City] and the other defendants in this action." Pallamary admitted at trial that The Coronado Water Company was held or controlled by Spreckels.
22
1930, and at all times prior to that date, was the [MHTL] in the said bay on the
City['s] . . . side thereof . . . ." Its answer then set forth a courses and distances boundary
description, which presumably was the description set forth in the settlement agreement
proposed by Spreckels and accepted by the City Council.
On August 19, the court entered the Spreckels judgment, setting forth its
determination of the boundary between City's Bay tidelands property and Spreckels's
upland property, as quoted ante. A newspaper headline that day reported that City's
tidelines were "fixed." An article further reported, inter alia, that one of Spreckels's
attorneys had been present at the meeting at which the City Council adopted the
resolution approving the settlement agreement stipulating to the agreed fixed tidelands
boundary.
E
Analysis. Based on our independent review of the undisputed extrinsic evidence
in the trial record, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the Spreckels judgment fixed the
boundaries of Plaintiffs' properties with the Bay tidelands. The evidence showed that
there had been wharves and other artificial improvements constructed in the immediate
vicinity of Plaintiffs' properties along First Street. As of the late 1800's, construction of
long wharves was planned along the First Street shoreline and, in particular, in the
vicinity of Plaintiffs' properties. In 1929, the City Council referred to the issue of
"wharves west of the ferry [i.e., in the vicinity of Plaintiffs' properties]" and passed a
resolution that owners of all wharves on City tidelands be instructed to obtain a permit or
lease on the tideland property they were using. Therefore, the undisputed evidence
23
shows that, as of 1929, there were multiple wharves constructed along the First Street
shoreline west of the ferry landing, which area includes Plaintiffs' properties.
Furthermore, evidence regarding Leeds's survey work confirmed the existence in
1930 of artificial fill in the area of Plaintiffs' properties. In one 1930 letter, Leeds
referred to "[a] considerable additional number of excavations . . . necessary . . . to
definitely fix the location of the historical and now buried beach line at certain critical
locations." In another 1930 letter, he enclosed blueprints showing "the courses and
distances describing the [MHTL] around [City] on the Bay side," and stated: "I have
been getting into shape a list of holes which were dug by us, necessary to show where the
[MHTL] was before any artificial filling was done, together with complete logs of each,
and a map showing their location." In another 1930 letter, Leeds reported that he had
completed the field survey of the MHTL and stated that "[w]here . . . it was apparent that
there has been some artificial filling, excavations were made at strategic points, the line
of demarkation [sic] between the original and the filled material was observed and
recorded, and the [MHTL] as it existed prior to the artificial filling was determined. The
record of these holes, including surface elevations of original ground and material
through which excavation was made, has all been recorded." Leeds's 1930 survey work
therefore showed that he located the historic MHTL prior to the placement of artificial fill
over the MHTL. Where there had been artificial fill placed over the MHTL, the
boundary line that Leeds surveyed was the MHTL prior to the placement of that fill.
Although the evidence regarding Leeds's survey work did not show specifically where
those areas of artificial fill were found, we infer from the evidence discussed ante
24
regarding the existence of wharves along the First Street shoreline in the vicinity of
Plaintiffs' properties that Leeds presumably found artificial fill in the immediate vicinity
of those properties. Because extrinsic evidence shows that there were both artificial
improvements (e.g., wharves) and artificial fill in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiffs'
properties, the artificial accretions rule applies to support an interpretation that the
Spreckels judgment fixed the boundary of Plaintiffs' properties on the Bay tidelands. As
discussed ante, "land along tidelands . . . that accretes by artificial means . . . remains in
state ownership[] and does not go to the upland owner. . . . Accretion is artificial if
directly caused by human activities in the immediate vicinity of the accreted land." (State
Lands, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 56.) State Lands reasoned: " '[A]ccretions formed
gradually and imperceptibly, but caused entirely by artificial means—that is, by the
works of man, such as wharves, groins, piers, etc., and by the dumping of material into
the ocean—belong to the state, or its grantee, and do not belong to the upland owner. . . .
If accretions along an entire bay caused by the construction of a pier or wharf were held
to belong to the upland owners as against the state, or its grantee, it would mean, in some
cases, that the power of the municipality to improve its harbor would be cut off unless the
accreted areas were condemned. It would mean that every time the state or its grantee
determined to build a wharf or pier, or to grant a permit or franchise for such
construction, it would be granting away a material portion of the tidelands along the
entire bay that might later be covered by artificial accretions. . . . Such a rule would be
violative of fundamental concepts of public policy.' " (State Lands, at pp. 69-70, quoting
Carpenter, supra, 63 Cal.App.2d at p. 794.) Accordingly, based on the evidence showing
25
artificial improvements and artificial fill in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiffs'
properties, it is reasonable to infer that the parties to the Spreckels action and the trial
court intended to fix the location of City's tidelands boundary with Plaintiffs' properties
(and elsewhere) rather than retaining an ambulatory MHTL boundary that changes over
time.
More importantly, the extrinsic evidence admitted at trial overwhelmingly shows
the parties to the Spreckels action had the mutual intent in 1931 to fix the boundaries
between City's Bay tidelands and the landward properties. Because the Spreckels
judgment was facially ambiguous regarding that mutual intent, we review the extrinsic
evidence admitted at trial to determine what the parties' mutual intention was at the time
of that 1931 judgment. As discussed ante, the mutual intention of the parties "is
determined by objective manifestations of the parties' intent, including the words used in
the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding
circumstances under which the parties negotiated or entered into the contract; the object,
nature and subject matter of the contract; and the subsequent conduct of the parties."
(Morey, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 912.) Based on our independent review of the
extrinsic evidence admitted at trial, we conclude the evidence overwhelmingly shows the
parties had the mutual intent to fix the boundary between City's Bay tidelands and the
landward properties. In February 1930, the City Council authorized the City attorney to
commence quiet title proceedings "to fix" City's tidelands boundary. In a May 16, 1930
letter to the City Council, Leeds stated:
26
"It is our understanding that this [courses and distances boundary] line as now surveyed and described is to be made the basis of negotiations or legal action with a view to its establishment as the official boundary of the tidelands of [City], and that you desire the completion of our contract by marking the line with concrete monuments and furnishing the City with a final map . . . be deferred until the said line shall have been rendered official either by definite agreement between the City and the various claimants or until a court decree thereon shall have been obtained. [¶] . . . [¶]
"As soon as definite and final agreement shall have been reached between the City and the various claimants as to the proper official location of the [MHTL], or immediately upon the rendering of a judicial decision as to the location thereof, we will at once proceed to set concrete monuments replacing the present wood stakes and complete the official map." (Italics added.)
That letter shows that Leeds's courses and distances survey was intended by City not only
to provide a basis for negotiations with the defendants in the Spreckels action regarding
the location of the Bay tidelands boundary, but also that after the parties reached a
settlement agreement and/or there was a court determination, he would make that official
boundary line permanent by placing concrete monuments marking that boundary and
recording a final survey map. Also, Lehman testified that after the Spreckels judgment
was entered, Leeds replaced his temporary wood stake markers with concrete
monuments, reflecting a "permanent fixed line" for City's tidelands boundary. The above
evidence supports our conclusion that the parties to the Spreckels action negotiated the
location of a fixed boundary, not an ambulatory MHTL boundary.
The parties' pleadings provide further support for our conclusion that their mutual
intention was to fix City's Bay tidelands boundary. City's original 1930 complaint
alleged that it was the owner of property situated in the Bay, according to a courses and
27
distances description of City's tidelands boundary that presumably was prepared by
Leeds. By describing that tidelands boundary line in terms of a courses and distances
survey, City, in effect, expressed its objective intent to permanently "fix" City's Bay
tidelands boundary line. In its 1930 answer, while denying that City's boundary
description was correct, Spreckels asserted that instead of City's alleged boundary, "on
July 31, 1930, and at all times prior to that date, the [MHTL] in the Bay . . . on the
[City's] side of the said bay was, and is now, a line described as follows, to wit: [setting
forth a lengthy surveyor's description of angles or courses and distances representing
about 134 lines that run from certain stations, concrete monuments, points, or stakes to
other stations, monuments, points, or stakes]." By alleging in its answer that City's
tidelands boundary was "at all times prior to" July 31, 1930, a line as described by a
courses and distances survey, Spreckels also expressed its objective intent to, in effect,
permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary line. Therefore, the objective
manifestations of both City and Spreckels in their original pleadings expressed their
mutual intention to permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary, albeit with different
fixed boundary lines. Contrary to Plaintiffs' apparent assertion, our review of the parties'
pleadings does not support a reasonable inference that Spreckels or any of the other
defendants in that action sought to have an ambulatory MHTL boundary declared or
determined by the court.
In addition to the evidence ante, extrinsic evidence during the period immediately
prior to and after the Spreckels judgment provides further support for our conclusion that
the parties' mutual intention was to permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary. At
28
the August 17, 1931 City Council meeting, City's mayor stated that Leeds had been
employed by City "to fix and determine" City's tidelands boundary. Importantly, the
mayor then reported that Spreckels's counsel consulted with City's counsel and proposed
a form of agreement describing the metes and bounds of that boundary, which agreement
seemed to be equitable and was apparently acceptable to Spreckels. The City Council
then adopted a settlement agreement that presumably was proposed by Spreckels's
counsel, determining City's tidelands boundary per that metes and bounds (i.e., courses
and distances) description. City's counsel described the benefits to City of the proposed
settlement agreement, stating: "[I]ts good is inestimable and he could not place the value
it will bring the City in the future by fixing this tide line. It is more than fair to the
intentions of this Council, as it will prove on being fixed." (Italics added.) The City
attorney concurred, stating that the settlement agreement will save City considerable
litigation expenses and "will finally determine the question as to the high tide line and as
to what the City boundary is and will be." (Italics added.) Presumably to effect that
settlement agreement, City then filed an amended complaint in its quiet title action,
alleging its Bay tidelands boundary was as set forth in a revised courses and distances
description, which apparently was the description set forth in the settlement agreement
proposed by Spreckels and accepted by the City Council. The following day, also
presumably to effect the settlement agreement, Spreckels filed its answer to the amended
complaint, admitting that boundary line described in City's amended complaint "is, and
on the 21st day of July, 1930, and at all times prior to that date, was" City's Bay
tidelands boundary. (Italics added.) Its answer then set forth a courses and distances
29
boundary description, which apparently was the description set forth in the settlement
agreement proposed by Spreckels and accepted by the City Council. Accordingly, we
conclude the parties' subsequent pleadings, as with their original pleadings, constituted
objective manifestations of their mutual intention to permanently fix City's Bay tidelands
boundary, rather than to retain an ambulatory MHTL boundary.
On August 19, 1931, presumably accepting the parties' settlement agreement and
concurring that the parties' mutual courses and distances description of City's Bay
tidelands boundary line was correct, the court entered the Spreckels judgment that set
forth its determination of the boundary between City's Bay tidelands property and
Spreckels's upland property. We conclude that by adopting the parties' agreed-on courses
and distances boundary description, the court presumably intended to permanently fix
City's Bay tidelands boundary, even though its judgment was, as we concluded in SLPR I,
ambiguous on its face regarding that intent.
Actions subsequent to the Spreckels judgment also support our conclusion that the
parties had the mutual intention to permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary. A
newspaper article on August 19, 1931, reported that the judgment "fixed" City's tidelines
and that one of Spreckels's attorneys had been present at the meeting at which the City
Council adopted the resolution approving the settlement agreement stipulating to the
agreed fixed tidelands boundary. Also, after the Spreckels judgment in 1931, Leeds set
the concrete monuments permanently marking that fixed boundary line and prepared an
official map of that fixed boundary line, which was recorded in 1932 as Map 121. Map
121 was subsequently used by the Legislature to describe City's Bay tidelands boundary
30
and used in a survey of Plaintiffs' lots. In 1947, the Legislature enacted a statute "to
redescribe and fix" the boundary of the Bay tidelands conveyed to City in 1923,
describing that boundary in pertinent part:
"Beginning at the intersection of the ordinary high water mark of Glorietta Bay . . . and running thence from said monument along the said ordinary high water mark of Glorietta Bay, the ordinary high water mark of San Diego Bay, and the ordinary high water mark of Spanish Bight following the courses and distances delineated and tabulated on a map . . . designated Miscellaneous Map No. 121 . . . to a six inch by six inch concrete monument . . . set at the intersection of the ordinary high water mark in Spanish Bight with the west boundary of the City of Coronado . . . ." (Italics added.)
In 1949, a record of survey was recorded that apparently created Plaintiffs' individual lots
and described their bayside boundaries as the "[MHTL] of San Diego Bay according to
Miscellaneous Map No. 121." Accordingly, the above evidence shows that since the
Spreckels judgment in 1931, the fixed boundary described in Map 121, reflecting that
judgment, was relied on not only by the parties to the Spreckels judgment, but also by the
Legislature, to describe City's Bay tidelands boundary. Plaintiffs have not cited any
evidence showing that after the Spreckels judgment either the parties or the Legislature
considered that boundary to be an ambulatory MHTL boundary. Therefore, the
subsequent conduct of the parties and others supports our conclusion that the Spreckels
judgment permanently fixed City's Bay tidelands boundary. (Morey, supra, 64
Cal.App.4th at p. 912; Ocean Shore, supra, 32 Cal.2d at p. 414.)
Finally, expert testimony presented at trial supports our conclusion that the
Spreckels judgment fixed City's Bay tidelands boundary rather than retaining an
ambulatory MHTL boundary. Pallamary, Plaintiffs' expert, testified the general rule in a
31
metes and bounds description is that words following the terms "to" and "along" are
primary and controlling "calls" because they control the direction and bounds and words
that precede the terms "to" and "along" are secondary or informative. Our review of the
Spreckels judgment shows that although it initially refers to the MHTL as City's Bay
tidelands boundary, it follows that reference with a specific metes and bounds, or courses
and distances, boundary description that uses terms such as "at" and "along" while
specifying certain directions and distances of its boundary lines (e.g., "thence North 59
[degrees] 35' 00' West a distance of 130.38 feet to Station No. 1"). Furthermore,
Lehman, Defendants' expert, testified that the description of City's Bay tidelines
boundary in the Spreckels judgment described a permanent fixed line in the form of a
metes and bounds description and not an ambulatory MHTL boundary. Therefore, the
Spreckels judgment's metes and bounds fixed boundary description is primary and
controlling and its initial MHTL reference is merely secondary or informative. Based on
our independent review of the Spreckels judgment and the extrinsic evidence admitted at
trial, we reject Pallamary's proffered opinion that the Spreckels judgment is "hopelessly
irreconcilable" because it referred to the MHTL while also including a metes and bounds
description. On the contrary, for the reasons discussed ante, we conclude the Spreckels
judgment permanently fixed City's Bay tidelands boundary.
F
Evidence of Spreckels's Intentions. Plaintiffs assert that to prove the meaning of
the Spreckels judgment based on the mutual intention of the parties to the Spreckels
action, evidence showing Spreckels's intent to fix City's Bay tidelands boundary was
32
required. They further assert that because there was no evidence admitted showing
Spreckels's intent, the Spreckels judgment cannot be interpreted as fixing City's Bay
tidelands boundary. We disagree.
First, the cases cited by Plaintiffs, Rancho Pauma, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th 109
and City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232 (City of
Manhattan Beach), do not support Plaintiffs' apparent argument that any determination
resolving an ambiguity in a judgment or other written instrument requires evidence of
each party's subjective intent. In Rancho Pauma, we stated: "If a judgment is
ambiguous, we may examine the entire record to determine its scope and effect, including
the pleadings." (Rancho Pauma, at p. 115.) We further stated: " '[T]he primary object of
all interpretation is to ascertain and carry out the intention of the parties." (Ibid., quoting
City of Manhattan Beach, at p. 238.) Those cases merely restate the general rule that in
interpreting a contract or other written instrument, the goal is to "give effect to the mutual
intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is
ascertainable and lawful." (Civ. Code, § 1636.) The mutual intention of the parties "is
determined by objective manifestations of the parties' intent, including the words used in
the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding
circumstances under which the parties negotiated or entered into the contract; the object,
nature and subject matter of the contract; and the subsequent conduct of the parties."
(Morey, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 912.) Accordingly, our task in interpreting an
ambiguous judgment or other written instrument is to ascertain the mutual intention of
33
the parties based on their objective manifestations. In so doing, we do not consider, or
require evidence showing, each party's subjective intent.
Second, contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, there is ample evidence showing the
mutual intention of the parties to the Spreckels action was to permanently fix City's Bay
tidelands boundary. As discussed ante, City's original complaint asserted it was the
owner of property situated in the Bay, according to a courses and distances description of
City's tidelands boundary. Spreckels's answer denied the correctness of City's description
of its tidelands boundary, but asserted instead that City's tidelands boundary was a line
described per a surveyor's description of angles or courses and distances representing
about 134 lines. At the August 17, 1931 City Council meeting, City's mayor reported
that Spreckels's counsel had consulted with City's counsel and proposed a form of
agreement describing the metes and bounds of City's Bay tidelands boundary, which
agreement was apparently acceptable to Spreckels. The City Council then adopted a
resolution that accepted that proposed settlement agreement. City then filed an amended
complaint in its quiet title action, alleging its Bay tidelands boundary was as set forth in a
revised courses and distances description, and Spreckels's answer admitted that the line
described in City's amended complaint was the correct boundary, which presumably was
the courses and distances description set forth in the settlement agreement proposed by
Spreckels and accepted by the City Council. By asserting in their original pleadings and
in their postsettlement agreement pleadings that City's Bay tidelands boundary line was a
courses and distances line as described in those pleadings, the parties objectively
expressed their mutual intention to permanently fix City's Bay tidelines boundary instead
34
of retaining an ambulatory MHTL boundary.6 Plaintiffs have not cited any evidence
showing the parties' mutual intention was to retain an ambulatory MHTL boundary.7
G
Weight of extrinsic evidence. Plaintiffs also assert that to prove the meaning of the
ambiguous language in the Spreckels judgment and for res judicata to apply, State was
required to present unequivocal evidence that the mutual intention of the parties to the
Spreckels action was to fix City's Bay tidelands boundary. However, the cases cited by
Plaintiffs do not support such a novel standard of proof. In Casad, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d
921, cited by Plaintiffs, the court stated: " 'In view of the certainty required in estoppels,
the application of the doctrine of res judicata cannot be made by inference or surmise as
to the effect of the judgment. If, on the face of the record, anything is left to conjecture
as to what was necessarily involved and decided, there is no estoppel in it when it is
pleaded, and nothing conclusive in it when it is offered in evidence.' [Citations.]" (Id. at
p. 927, quoting 29 Cal.Jur.2d, Judgments, § 239, pp. 200-201; see also Estate of Miller
6 In so concluding, we need not consider, or address the effect of, the settlement agreement between City and The Coronado Water Company, described ante. Likewise, we need not consider, or address the effect of, evidence showing that the parties may have intended to fix City's Bay tidelands boundary, in part, because future development along the Bay shoreline was anticipated. (See, e.g., Muchenberger v. City of Santa Monica (1929) 206 Cal. 635, 642-643.)
7 In fact, Pallamary testified regarding the boundary immediately before the Spreckels action that "[t]here was confusion, but the boundary had been fixed by all of that artificial activity notwithstanding whatever they were debating in the litigation." (Italics added.)
35
(1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 1, 19; Code Civ. Proc., § 1911 ["That only is deemed to have
been adjudged in a former judgment which appears on its face to have been so adjudged,
or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto."].)
However, our interpretation of the Spreckels judgment does not contravene the rule set
forth in Casad. Given the pleadings in the Spreckels action and the overwhelming
extrinsic evidence clarifying the facially ambiguous Spreckels judgment as discussed
above, we conclude there is nothing in the Spreckels judgment that was left to conjecture
or inference as to what was necessarily involved in the Spreckels action or what the
Spreckels judgment decided. (Cf. Casad, at p. 927.) Therefore, the doctrine of res
judicata may be applied to this case based on the Spreckels judgment. To the extent
Casad implies, as Plaintiffs apparently assert, that a court cannot consider extrinsic
evidence in order to clarify an ambiguous judgment, we disagree with such a rule and
decline to apply it to the facts in this case. Furthermore, City's Bay tidelands boundary
was expressly litigated in the Spreckels action and therefore the Spreckels court's
determination of that boundary was necessarily included and decided in the Spreckels
judgment. (Ibid.) Therefore, res judicata applies to that judgment's determination of
City's boundary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1911; Mycogen Corp., supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 897;
Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1202.)
Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, the extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of an
ambiguous judgment is not required to be "unequivocal" or eliminate all "reasonable
36
doubt."8 Rather, if extrinsic evidence is sufficient to persuade a court that an ambiguous
judgment is clarified by the objective manifestations of the parties' mutual intention, then
that judgment may be found to be unambiguous based on the whole record and res
judicata may then be applied. (Civ. Code, § 1636; Morey, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at
p. 912.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not cite any case holding that extrinsic evidence
admitted to clarify an ambiguous judgment must be "unequivocal." In any event, based
on our review of the extrinsic evidence admitted at trial, we conclude, as discussed ante,
that evidence overwhelmingly, if not indisputably, shows the parties' mutual intention
was clear that the Spreckels judgment permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary.
Plaintiffs do not cite any evidence showing otherwise.
8 We decline to follow those decisions of federal courts of appeal cited by Plaintiffs because we, as a California appellate court, are not bound to follow them and they apply the laws of other jurisdictions and are factually inapposite to this case. (See, e.g., McNellis v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (2d Cir. 1966) 364 F.2d 251, 257 ["[A] reasonable doubt as to what was decided in the first action should preclude the drastic remedy of foreclosing a party from litigating an essential issue."]; Kauffman v. Moss (3d Cir. 1970) 420 F.2d 1270, 1274 ["Reasonable doubt as to what was decided by a prior judgment should be resolved against using it as an estoppel."]; United States v. United Techs. Corp. (6th Cir. 2015) 782 F.3d 718, 729 ["Because issue preclusion forever precludes litigation with respect to a covered finding, courts err on the side of construing prior ambiguous findings or holdings narrowly. [Citations.] ('[I]f reasonable doubt exists as to what was decided in the first action, the doctrine of res judicata should not be applied.')."].)
37
H
Plaintiffs' remaining assertions. Plaintiffs also assert that the overwhelming
extrinsic evidence showing the parties' mutual intention was that the Spreckels judgment
permanently fix City's boundary is insufficient for res judicata to apply because
Defendants filed a cross-complaint that alleged an alternative fixed boundary and
recorded a lis pendens based thereon. However, Plaintiffs misconstrue Defendants'
cross-complaint. The cross-complaint primarily sought a determination that the Bayside
boundaries of Plaintiffs' properties be as depicted on Map 121 and, if not so determined,
an alternative determination declaring their boundaries fixed based on artificial accretion
in the 1950's. By seeking alternative relief in the event the court did not find the
Spreckels judgment fixed Plaintiffs' Bayside boundaries in 1931, Defendants did not, as
Plaintiffs apparently assert, abandon their primary allegation that the Spreckels judgment
permanently fixed the Bayside boundaries of Plaintiffs' properties. Contrary to Plaintiffs'
assertion, by filing their cross-complaint and recording a lis pendens based thereon,
Defendants did not "implicitly conced[e]" they had not met their burden at trial to show
the Spreckels judgment permanently fixed City's Bay tidelands boundary.
Plaintiffs also assert the trial court applied a lesser burden for application of res
judicata to the Spreckels judgment based on the age of that judgment. However, our
review of the record does not support their assertion that the trial court lessened the
applicable burden of proof based on the age of the Spreckels judgment. The court stated:
"The Spreckels decision was published over [80] years ago. The fact of the age of the case is relevant only to the likelihood that the exhibits, or briefs from the case[,] might still be available for
38
consideration. If this Court were to limit the extrinsic evidence that could be considered in determining res judicata to the evidence or arguments which were presented in the course of the original proceedings under review, many, if not all cases of this vintage or older might be placed in jeopardy should a question regarding ambiguity of the judgment arise."
By so commenting, the court correctly noted the practical problem of relying solely on
court records and pleadings in determining the meaning of an ambiguous judgment that
was entered many years ago. Accordingly, the court correctly, as we discussed ante,
admitted all extrinsic evidence that was relevant to show the objective manifestations of
the parties' mutual intention regarding the meaning of the Spreckels judgment. By so
doing, the court did not lessen the burden of proof, but rather merely admitted all relevant
extrinsic evidence to prove the meaning of the facially ambiguous Spreckels judgment.
In any event, based on our own independent review of the extrinsic evidence, we
conclude State met its burden to prove that the parties' mutual intention was for the
Spreckels judgment to permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary.
I
Application of res judicata. Because we concluded ante that the evidence
admitted at trial overwhelmingly shows the parties intended that the Spreckels judgment
permanently fix City's Bay tidelands boundary, the facial ambiguity of the Spreckels
judgment that we recognized in SLPR I has now been resolved. Res judicata, or claim
preclusion, applies when: "(1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the
merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding;
and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to
39
the prior proceeding." (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns., supra, 126 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1202.) As discussed ante, Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are in privity with
Spreckels or that Port is City's successor-in-interest regarding the Spreckels judgment.
Plaintiffs also do not dispute that the Spreckels judgment involved the same issue or
cause of action as in their action against Defendants (i.e., the location of their properties'
Bayside boundaries). Accordingly, all of the elements for application of the doctrine of
res judicata have been satisfied in this case. Therefore, we apply res judicata based on
the Spreckels judgment to bar the first and second causes of action alleged by Plaintiffs.
(Mycogen Corp., supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 896-897.)
Section II
Order Sustaining State's Demurrer
Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred by sustaining State's demurrer to their
causes of action for inverse condemnation, nuisance, and removal of lateral support (i.e.,
the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action). State responds that those causes of action are
time-barred based on Plaintiffs' failure to timely challenge the conduct that underlies
those claims against it. In particular, State argues that because Plaintiffs did not file a
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 petition for writ of mandate within 60 days of its
final decisions concurring with the consistency determinations of the Navy and Army,
Plaintiffs are statutorily barred by Public Resources Code section 30801 from alleging
causes of action against State based on its concurrences with those consistency
determinations. As explained post, we agree with State's argument.
40
A
Demurrer standard of review. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a
complaint. (City of Morgan Hill v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2004) 118
Cal.App.4th 861, 869 (City of Morgan Hill).) A general demurrer to a complaint asserts
the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Service (2000) 81
Cal.App.4th 39, 42-43 (Rakestraw); Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 220.)
"In determining whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action, the trial court may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those
arising by reasonable implication therefrom; it may not consider contentions, deductions
or conclusions of fact or law." (Young, at p. 220.) A statute of limitations defense may
be asserted by general demurrer if the complaint shows on its face that the statute bars the
action. (Mitchell v. State Dept. of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007
(Mitchell); Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 419
(Coalition for Clean Air).) Nevertheless, " '[a] demurrer based on a statute of limitations
will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. [Citation.] In order
for the bar . . . to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear
on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action
may be barred. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Geneva Towers Ltd. Partnership v. City and
County of San Francisco (2003) 29 Cal.4th 769, 781.)
On appeal after a trial court sustains a general demurrer, we determine de novo the
question of whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under
41
any legal theory. (Rakestraw, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 43.) In so doing, we accept as
true all material factual allegations of the complaint, unless contrary to law or facts of
which a court may take judicial notice. (Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay
Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677; Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997)
53 Cal.App.4th 15, 27.) The plaintiff bears the burden on appeal to show the trial court
erred by sustaining a demurrer. (Rakestraw, at p. 43.) "A judgment of dismissal after a
demurrer has been sustained without leave to amend will be affirmed if proper on any
grounds stated in the demurrer, whether or not the court acted on that ground." (Carman
v. Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, 324.) If we conclude after reviewing a complaint that no
liability exists as a matter of law, we must affirm the trial court's order sustaining the
demurrer. (City of Morgan Hill, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 870.) We review a court's
denial of leave to amend a complaint on sustaining a demurrer for abuse of discretion.
(Traders Sports v. City of San Leandro (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 37, 43 (Traders Sports).)
On appeal, the appellant must show there is a reasonable possibility that the defect in the
complaint can be cured by amendment. (Ibid.; Friedland v. City of Long Beach (1998)
62 Cal.App.4th 835, 841-842 (Friedland).)
B
Relevant procedural background. On remand after SLPR I, Plaintiffs filed the
TAC, alleging causes of action, inter alia, for inverse condemnation, nuisance, and
removal of lateral support. The TAC alleged that State substantially participated in the
three dredging projects by Navy and Army, which projects allegedly caused damage to
Plaintiffs' properties. The TAC alleged State substantially participated in all three
42
dredging projects because "State had the power to require changes to all three dredging
projects, which is demonstrated as follows: A) in connection with the 1998 Turning
Basin dredging project, State objected to the fact that Navy intended to dispose of dredge
spoils at an ocean disposal site, rather than using dredge spoils for beach replenishment.
State obtained a preliminary injunction halting the dredging project. Navy was only
allowed to resume its work on the project when it agreed to contribute $9.6 million
toward erosion mitigation measures; [and] B) in connection with the 2004-2005 Central
Navigation Channel dredging project, State withheld its consent to the Army Corps'
consistency determination until the Army Corps agreed to dispose of dredge spoils off
shore of Imperial Beach. [Citations.]" The TAC further alleged: "Although State had
the power to require changes to all three projects, it failed to exercise such power to
protect the First Street shoreline."
State demurred to the TAC. Regarding the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action,
State asserted the affirmative defense that Plaintiffs had failed to timely challenge CCC's
concurrences with Navy and Army's consistency determinations by filing a petition for
writ of administrative mandate within 60 days after CCC's decisions became final as
required by Public Resources Code section 30801. The trial court sustained State's
demurrer to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. The court stated:
"Plaintiffs' claims against the State are premised on [CCC's] role in reviewing the dredging projects. [Citation.] The State argues [P]laintiffs failed to timely challenge [CCC's concurrences with the Navy and Army's] consistency determinations after [P]laintiffs[] participated in the hearing and asserted objections to [CCC's] findings. [Citations.] The Court agrees with the State's position, and
43
finds these claims fail[] because [P]laintiffs failed to challenge [CCC's] actions within the applicable statute of limitations."
Accordingly, the court dismissed the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action against State.
C
Consistency determinations generally. The Coastal Act is a comprehensive
scheme to govern land use planning for California's coastal zone. (San Diego Navy
Broadway Complex Coalition v. California Coastal Com. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 563,
571.) CCC has jurisdiction to review determinations by federal agencies that their
projects are consistent with the Coastal Act. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30000, 30321,
30330.) Specifically, CCC "may . . . grant or issue any certificate or statement required
pursuant to [the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1451,
et seq.)] that an activity of any person, including any . . . federal agency, is in conformity
with" the Coastal Act. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30330.)
Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), activities of federal
agencies within the coastal zone that affect any land or water use or natural resource
"shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable
with the enforceable policies of approved State management programs." (16 U.S.C.
§ 1456(c)(1)(A); see also 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(2).9) When carrying out such an activity,
a federal agency "shall provide a consistency determination to the relevant State agency
9 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(2) provides: "Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the coastal zone of a state shall insure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the enforceable policies of approved state management programs."
44
[e.g., CCC] . . . at the earliest practicable time, but in no case later than 90 days before
final approval of the Federal activity . . . ." (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(C); see also City of
Sausalito v. O'Neill (9th Cir. 2004) 386 F.3d 1186, 1201 (City of Sausalito).) An agency
or other applicant applying for a federal permit for an activity that may affect a state's
coastal zone "shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a
certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the
state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent
with the program. At the same time, the applicant shall furnish to the state or its
designated agency a copy of the certification . . . ." (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A).)
"At the earliest practicable time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the
Federal agency concerned that the state concurs with or objects to the applicant's
certification." (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(3)(A).) By federal regulation, a state agency, such
as CCC, has 60 days to concur with, conditionally concur with, or object to a federal
agency's consistency determination. (15 C.F.R. §§ 930.41 [60-day review period for
concurrences or objections], 930.43, 930.4.) If a state agency, such as CCC, objects to a
consistency determination, it must state the reasons for its objection, describe how the
proposed project is inconsistent with its coastal management program, and describe
alternative measures. (15 C.F.R. § 930.43(a)(3).) However, if the state and federal
agency cannot resolve their differences, the federal agency can nevertheless proceed with
its proposed activity over the state's objection if it concludes its proposed activity is fully
consistent with the enforceable policies of the state's coastal management program.
45
(15 C.F.R. § 930.43(d).) If CCC believes the proposed federal activity violates and/or is
otherwise inconsistent with the CZMA and/or the Coastal Act, CCC may file an action
for injunctive relief enjoining the federal agency from proceeding with the proposed
activity. (See, e.g., California Coastal Com., supra, 5 F.Supp.2d at pp. 1107-1109,
1112.) Likewise, "parties other than those charged with making or concurring in a
consistency determination" are allowed to bring suit under the CZMA. (City of Sausalito,
supra, 386 F.3d at p. 1201; see also, Akiak Native Community v. United States Postal
Rather, the only conduct by State alleged to have caused the damage to Plaintiffs'
properties in their third, fourth, and fifth causes of action is CCC's concurrences with, or
failures to object to or otherwise challenge, Navy and Army's consistency determinations
for their federal dredging projects. Because the record on appeal does not show, and
Plaintiffs do not assert, that they filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate within
60 days of CCC's decisions to concur with, and not object to and otherwise challenge,
50
those consistency determinations, the 60-day statute of limitations under Public
Resources Code section 30801 applies to bar Plaintiffs' causes of action for inverse
condemnation, nuisance, and removal of lateral support.10 (Cf. Pacific Shores Property
Owners Assn., at p. 34.) Accordingly, the trial court did not err by sustaining State's
demurrer to the TAC's third, fourth, and fifth causes of action.
To the extent Plaintiffs argue that their causes of action against State are not based
on CCC's decisions to concur with, or not object to or challenge, Navy and Army's
consistency determinations, but are instead based on the physical damage to their
properties subsequently caused by the federal dredging projects, we disagree. As we
concluded ante, the TAC does not allege, nor can it be reasonably inferred from its
allegations, that CCC physically invaded or damaged Plaintiffs' properties.11
(Cf. Pacific Shores Property Owners Assn., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 34.) Plaintiffs
cannot decline to avail themselves of the procedures of Code of Civil Procedure section
1094.5 and thereby "convert that right into a cause of action in inverse condemnation."
(Pfeiffer, supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at p. 78; see also Serra Canyon Co., supra, 120
10 In fact, there is nothing in the record on appeal showing that Plaintiffs have, to date, ever filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging CCC's decisions to concur with, or not object to or challenge, Navy and Army's consistency determinations regarding the federal dredging projects in 1998, 2002, and 2004 to 2005.
11 We likewise reject Plaintiffs' assertion that their three causes of action are based on State's alleged exercise of dominion and control over their properties. Rather, that allegation relates only to their quiet title causes of action which, as discussed ante, are barred by res judicata. We are not persuaded by Plaintiffs' conclusory arguments to the contrary.
51
Cal.App.4th at p. 669.) Therefore, Plaintiffs do not show that the 60-day statute of
limitations under Public Resources Code section 30801 does not bar their causes of
action for inverse condemnation, nuisance, and removal of lateral support.12
Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiffs argue the trial court's order sustaining State's
demurrer to the three causes of action is inconsistent with our opinion in SLPR I in which
we concluded there were triable issues of material fact regarding those causes of action,
we conclude that there is no language in our SLPR I opinion addressing the Public
Resources Code section 30801 statute of limitations or precluding State from raising that
statute of limitations defense on remand in a demurrer to the TAC. To the extent we
concluded there was evidence to support a finding that State substantially participated in
the dredging projects, that evidence specifically consisted of CCC's concurrence with, or
failure to object to, the consistency determinations of Navy and Army regarding those
dredging projects and not because of any direct involvement in those dredging projects.
A statute of limitations defense may be raised in a demurrer or answer and thereby avoid
forfeiture of that defense. (Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 5, 8; County of Los
Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 898, 912 ["The time
bar of a statute of limitations may be raised by demurrer '[w]here the complaint discloses
12 In concluding that Plaintiffs' three causes of action are barred by the 60-day statute of limitations, we need not, and do not, rely on the three exhibits that Plaintiffs argue the trial court erroneously granted judicial notice of, and relied on, in sustaining State's demurrer. Those exhibits relate to a 2009 federal district court order in Plaintiffs' federal action, which order required Army to issue a new consistency determination, and subsequent CCC correspondence related thereto.
52
on its face that the statute of limitations has run on the causes of action stated in the
complaint, [for the reason that] it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action. [Citation.]' "]; Everts v. Blaschko (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 188, 190.) By raising the
affirmative defense of Public Resources Code section 30801 in its demurrer to the TAC,
State timely raised that defense.13
Finally, we note that Plaintiffs do not argue on appeal that they can amend their
complaint to avoid the application of the Public Resources Code section 30801 statute of
limitations. In particular, they do not show there is a reasonable possibility that the TAC
can be amended to avoid the application of that statute of limitations. Therefore, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the TAC
while sustaining State's demurrer. (Traders Sports, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 43;
Friedland, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 841-842.)
13 In any event, had State not timely raised that statute of limitations defense, we conclude the trial court would not have abused its discretion if it had allowed State to amend its pleadings to add that defense. (See, e.g., Trower v. City and County of San Francisco (1910) 157 Cal. 762, 768-769; Copp v. Millen (1938) 11 Cal.2d 122, 131; cf. Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 73.)
53
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
DATO, J.
54
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the 1931 Spreckels judgment fixed the boundaries between the plaintiffs' properties and the public tidelands, thereby barring the plaintiffs' quiet title claims under the doctrine of res judicata.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiffs' quiet title causes of action based on the 1931 Spreckels judgment.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the State's demurrer to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action based on the statute of limitations.
Whether the trial court properly admitted and considered extrinsic evidence to interpret the facially ambiguous Spreckels judgment.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the trial court erred by finding that extrinsic evidence showed the Spreckels judgment fixed the boundaries of their properties with the Bay tidelands and therefore the doctrine of res judicata applied”
“Finding that the 60-day statute of limitations barred Plaintiffs' claims against State based on CCC's concurrences or other decisions regarding the Navy and Army's consistency determinations, the trial court sustained State's demurrer”